Posts tagged: Barack Obama

Those Hurt by Obama and Quinn Must Demand Change

Written by Dan Proft, IllinoisOpportunity.org

This week two Chicago Democrat politicians who are farther out over their skis than Eddie “The Eagle” Edwards ever was (I’ve got Winter Olympics fever) will tell us their version of the state of United States of America, and the state of the State of Illinois.

They will explain to us that with just a few structural tax increases, and a price control or two, we could be living in a modern Utopia not even H.G. Wells could have imagined.

These two Manchurian executives will promise fairness and equality.  But all they really have to offer is the fool’s gold of resentment and entitlement.

Where did those two million jobs go since President Barack Obama took office? The one-percenters are hiding them in their yachts and Swiss bank accounts. Have an Obamaphone.

Where did the roughly 250,000 people who have left Illinois during Governor Pat Quinn’s five-year tenure go? The one-percenters are storing them in cryogenic chambers in a right-to-work state. How about a game of video poker?

The magnanimity of Messrs. Obama and Quinn for the other ninety-nine percent is mainly limited to Medicaid-coverage and a buck or two more per hour for the minimum wage jobs they don’t have.

Both gentlemen will tell us that their desire is to bring the working poor to middle-income level.  They use the term “class” but I prefer to remember America as a non-caste experiment in self-governance.

Whose aspirations will not be addressed? Middle-income working families clutching their current lot, and those sacrificing to move up from there.

It is easy to dismiss even to denigrate Messrs. Obama and Quinn. Their performance has been miserable and their perfidy richly deserves it.

Yet, both were reelected when they should not have been. How did they do it? They preyed on the powerlessness felt by two-thirds of Americans who believe the distribution of income in our country is unfair.

A NBC/Wall Street Journal survey conducted this week finds 59 percent of Americans feel pessimistic or uncertain about the future.

Almost every survey of Illinois residents taken during the past five years has found upwards of 80% who believe Illinois is on the wrong track. Sadly, it is the remaining 20 percent who are mistaken.

With such distaste for the status quo, how are its beneficiaries able to perpetuate it?

Why does it seem the worse the people in charge make things, the better it gets politically for them?

If people are so gloomy, why don’t our fellow citizens get outraged, and fire the current crop of politicians by voting them out?

Philosopher Eric Hoffer explained this counterintuitive state of affairs six decades ago.  In Hoffer’s book “The True Believer,” he posited that two conditions must be present for discontent to turn into demand for change.

First, the disaffected must feel a sense of power.  They have to believe they are in control of their circumstances and can alter the course of their lives for the better.

“Those who are awed by their surroundings do not think of change, no matter how miserable their conditions,” wrote Hoffer. “When our mode of life is so precarious as to make it patent that we cannot control the circumstance of our existence, we tend to stick to the proven and familiar.”

This, according to Hoffer, explained why there exists “a conservatism of the destitute as profound as the conservatism of the privileged.” That is what our current rulers have reduced many of our fellow citizens to: destitute people who are afraid of change and cling to the little they have.

Relating this to Illinois, most voters simply do not believe House Speaker Mike Madigan can be deposed. Many voters also believe there is no real difference between the two political parties anyway. These opinions are held by many Illinoisans who also think Illinois is on the wrong track. When people are reduced to hopelessness, they are inclined to endure the proven and familiar kleptocratic political culture, as bad as it is. So they resort to the familiar refrain, “There’s nothing I can do about it except move.”

The second essential condition Hoffer described, particularly as it relates to those in positions of power, is faith in the future.

“Fear of the future causes us to lean against and cling to the present, while faith in the future renders us receptive to change,” Hoffer observed.

Hoffer noted the Industrial Revolution as such a time. The world was being transformed by new technology at a dizzying pace, and old sources of wealth were disappearing. But the rich of those days had immense faith in the possibilities the future. They were willing to risk the comfort and stability they knew.

Thus, the conservative response locally and nationally must focus on acceptance of responsibility rather than avoidance of blame. The recognition that those two are not synonymous would be revolutionary to our politics. Dispelling hopelessness and creating hope for the future means proposing good policies, explaining how these changes can improve our quality of life, and motivating people to take action.

Conservatives must really believe that the citizens of Illinois, and America, can take control of their destiny, and have hope for the future. They must really believe that the policies they propose will work, and will make Illinois and America lands of opportunity again.  Only then will conservative reformers be able to inspire others to feel hope, and transition from passive discontent to active engagement to transform Illinois and America.


This article was originally posted at the IllinoisOpportunity.org blog.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA).

Mark Kirk Supports Same-Sex Faux Marriage

Written by Laurie Higgins

In case you didn’t hear the “BIG NEWS,” U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), serial prevaricator, has finally come out of the closet on marriage. He has announced his support for the elimination of sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage. I’m shocked.

In a maudlin and self-referential statement Kirk explained, “When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others….Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back — government has no place in the middle.”

When polygamists and polyamorists come knocking on marriage’s door, we should all remember Kirk’s wise words that “government has no place” getting between people who love each other.  And we certainly wouldn’t want to disrespect them.

Mark Kirk’s public shift in position, like Barack Obama’s, does not constitute positive change.

Nor did they even change. For years they have simply lied to move up the political ranks, exploiting the naïve and gullible among us, and in Kirk’s case, feeding at the Republican trough.

Any Republican who condescendingly proclaims that the “social issues” are irrelevant or insignificant or so unimportant as to be unworthy of his time or her attention deserves a slap upside the head and a boot out the door.

If “social issues” (a euphemism for political cowards who can’t bring themselves to say “same-sex ‘marriage,’”) are so trivial, so unimportant, so unworthy of public discourse—particularly as compared to the almighty fiscal issues—then why are “progressives” feverishly and unceasingly promoting policies, laws, and lawsuits related to homosexuality?

And what would a truce on the social issues even look like? Since sexuality regressives on both the Left and Right pertinaciously push policies and laws that embody subversive views of homosexuality and gender-confusion, what are immoderate Republicans and Libertarians suggesting the GOP do? What would their dismissive call for a truce actually look like?

Are they suggesting Republicans not vote on issues like same-sex “marriage,” comprehensive sex ed, the repeal of DOMA, repeal of DADT, ENDA, “hate crimes” legislation,” compulsory placement of children with homosexuals, compulsory inclusion of homosexuals as Boy Scout leaders, compulsory inclusion of positive portrayals of homosexuals and “transgenders” in school curricula, and “transgender” policies in schools and elsewhere?

Are they suggesting they vote but not discuss publicly the reasons for their votes?

Are they suggesting Republicans remain ignorant on the substantive reasons to stand firmly for truth, children, marriage, and family but vote anyway?

Please, Republican Pooh-Bahs, do tell us what you really want conservatives to do because it sounds like you’re telling us where to go—permanently.

Meanwhile, into the silence that immoderate Republicans—including our spine-free, conviction-free, deep-pocketed Republicans—have created through ad hominem attacks on conservatives, comes the increasingly vociferous support for all things homosexual.

Kirk and U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and Illinois Republican Chairman Pat Brady can hide behind the utterly false rhetoric of equality and compassion and thus conceal from America and perhaps themselves their complicity in the destruction of this once great nation.

And what will this mean for America? Diminished religious liberty, diminished speech rights, diminished parental rights, increasing numbers of children denied their inherent right to know and be raised by their biological mother and father, and the ultimate destruction of marriage.

By the way, Senator Kirk, whatever happened to the truce?

Illinois Senate Votes to Support Homosexual “Marriage”

Senator Jason Barickman Breaks With GOP

Written by David E. Smith, IFA Executive Director

Despite the fact that Illinois is facing serious financial and unemployment issues, including a bankrupt pension system, the Illinois Senate recently approved a bill to redefine marriage and family — on St. Valentine’s Day no less.

The vote results were 34-21 with 2 voting present.  This destructive and foolish decision reveals the ignorance — or in some cases cowardice — of those who voted for the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage. Lawmakers who approved this proposal have now formally and publicly declared that government-sanctioned marriage has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential. They have proclaimed that the sole inherent constituent feature of marriage is love.

One of the legislators in the Illinois Senate who joined with anti-family proponents of same-sex marriage is Jason Barickman, a freshman Republican Senator from Bloomington.  Barickman, as recently as last week, pledged to McLean County GOP Chairman John Parrott that he was against the proposal.  He didn’t follow through on that promise.

In the IFI Voter Guide, he also claimed to support an Illinois marriage amendment to permanently define marriage as one man, one woman in the state constitution.  Did Barickman “evolve” on this issue over the past four months like President Barack Obama?  Barickman may think that his four-year term will help insulate him from the consequences of his foolish vote; but the fact that he was the lone Republican to vote to pass this anti-family measure in the Illinois Senate will certainly make him a tier one target in the Republican primary in 2016.

What makes matters worse is the fact that Senator Barickman’s district includes the city of Paxton, the site of Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast.  The small business is owned by Jim Walder, a father of five children who is under attack from homosexual activists because he doesn’t want to rent his facility for a homosexual ceremony.  You see, Mr. Walder is a Christian, and the celebration of homosexuality violates his deeply-held beliefs.  He only wants to operate his business for the honor and glory of the Lord.  The liberal agents of tolerance and diversity cannot abide this.

Both the Illinois Attorney General and the Illinois Department of Human Rights are suing him.  It’s been an emotionally devastating experience for the Walders who did not ask for this battle.  The government of Illinois is determined to make Mr. Walder bow at the altar of progressive humanism.  If he does not, he will be punished.

Thanks in part to the vote earlier this week, our lawmakers in the Illinois Senate, including Mr. Walder’s own state senator, Jason Barickman, gave approval to a radical liberal social policy that provides pitifully weak religious liberty protections for churches and clergy members.  Lay people of faith and moral conscience, people like Jim Walder, have absolutely no protection.

Moreover, Senator Barickman is misleading people by suggesting the only reason he voted for the same-sex marriage bill is because he wanted to protect religious liberties. That claim is, at best, disingenuous.

These are his own words from the senate floor — speaking in favor of marriage redefinition:

“Along with these religious protections, I believe the people of Illinois want our government to give individuals freedom over their life decisions. We want fairness under the law. And so for me, this is simply the right thing to do. I will be voting yes to Senate Bill 10. Thank you.”

“Freedom?” — homosexuals have the liberty to have relationships with any consenting adult they wish.  Who is denying them “freedom?”

“Fairness?” — the suggestion is that homosexual relationships are equal to that of heterosexual relationships.  That is not true.  Homosexual relationships are NOT equal to one man, one woman marriage.  Treating them as if they were different is fair.  They are different! Moreover, is it fair that Christian business-owners like Jim Walder have to violate their convictions and violate their religious beliefs or face government legal action and penalties?

“The right thing to do?”  — the right thing to do would have been to speak and vote in favor of the institutions of marriage and family and not cave into the pressure from the homosexual lobby.  The right thing to do would have been to fight for the best interest of children, freedom of conscience, religious liberty and the traditional culture of Illinois.  The right thing to do would have been to stand boldly against the radical agents of change.

Sen. Barickman’s closing arguments on the Illinois Senate floor are shocking.  He used all the right liberal slogans in his advocacy for this terrible legislation.  His predecessor, Senator Shane Cultra, would have never succumbed to the lies of the Left.

IFI’s Laurie Higgins proposes that Sen. Barickman and other proponents of marriage redefinition answer this question: “If government-recognized marriage is solely about love with no inherent connection to either sexual complementarity or reproductive potential, why shouldn’t plural marriages or homosexual sibling ‘marriages’ be legalized?”

Or to put it more plainly, if marriage is solely about “love,” why are we banning the “B” in LGBTQ from marrying both a male and a female? Why limit it to only two?  Of course, it isn’t hard to imagine that this will be on the slippery slope agenda in a few short years.

Take ACTION: Send an email to Senator Barickman at jason@jasonbarickman.org.  Let him know how disappointed you are in his willingness to abandon the families and traditional values that make Illinois and America great.  You can also call his district office at (309) 661-2788.

Any lawmaker who claims that this law will not undermine religious liberty, freedom of conscience or parental rights is either foolish or lying.

“Here’s What You Ought to Do” said the Fox to the Chicken

Written by Micah Clark, AFA of Indiana

Scores of commentators have been rehashing the results of the November 6th election and advising the GOP on what it ought to do.  Let me say this to Republicans: only a party of fools would now take advice from the same media establishment that worked around the clock to ensure your defeat.  Instead of listening to the “talking heads” appearing on TV, both Republicans and Democrats would be wise to look at some amazing voter data from some truly large voting blocs.  They represent half of the American electorate, and their voting patterns have now been analyzed.

I don’t like breaking Americans into racial or ethnic classes, as I believe values of family, freedom and prosperity are universal virtues, not ethnic ones.  Still, there has been a lot of attention paid to the Hispanic vote. However, it consisted of just 10 percent of the vote total. (Seventy-two percent of the vote was white, but the media makes it sound like a small demographic.).  Far less attention has been paid to the votes cast by evangelical Christians who made up 26 percent of the total vote or 30 million out of 117 million votes.

Of those 30 million voters who identified as evangelical “born-again” Christians, 6.4 million of them voted for Barack Obama, who won by 2.4 million votes.  Twenty-one percent of these evangelical Christians voted to support the most pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-religious liberty, and anti-Israel administration in history.

Another huge multi-million bloc of voters were Catholics, who account for an additional 25 percent of the electorate.  Amazingly, after nearly two years of unprecedented hostility toward Catholic institutions and religious teachings on contraception, abortion, and marriage, an astonishing 50 percent of Catholics still voted for President Obama. Yet, it is a decline of 4 points since 2008.   (Obama received 42 percent of the votes of “practicing” Catholics.)

This double-mindedness is not unusual. It could be said that those most hurt by the worst economy since the 1930’s heavily voted to continue the policies of the Obama administration rather than change them.   Yet, what does it say about those people who identify as Christ-followers, but vote more like Atheists in the privacy of a voting booth?

The huge voting bloc of evangelicals and Catholics could still create enormous change for their issues, but only if they vote consistently with their faith.  By the way, the same number of evangelicals and fewer Catholics voted in 2012 than did in 2008. Just a few million more evangelicals and Catholics voting for pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-religious liberty candidates could offset other demographics that are becoming more liberal and have garnered the fascination of the media.

It is estimated that there were 35 million evangelical Christians who did not even vote! If just 10 percent of them went to the polls and voted their values, it would have turned last week’s results into a large Mitt Romney win.

Life Site News notes that the same disconnect could be said of pro-life voters.  You may not know by the media and political talk lately, but this summer Gallup Polling found that the number of Americans who support abortion had dropped to an all-time low (41 percent) and the number who are pro-life was at a record high of 51 percent.   Yet, last Tuesday, exit polls found that 59 percent of voters expressed a pro-abortion position.  Either pro-lifers didn’t show up, or many of them voted for the most pro-abortion administration in history.

This news is a result of the mile-wide, inch deep Christianity that fails to disciple its followers to turn Biblical views into public action. It is also a reminder that millions upon millions of people of faith are choosing to listen to and think like the culture around them rather than applying God’s instructions to their hearts and minds.  Moreover, it is not enough to tell people in the pews every other October to “vote your values” if those values are not being taught regularly on Sundays and lived out on Mondays.

This flat turnout data and voter schizophrenia should also confirm that if either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party wants the bulk of the large evangelical and Catholic vote bloc, it needs to have candidates with strong credentials on values issues.

As for the media’s advice, it is nothing new.  Here is a remarkable two-minute clip from Ronald Reagan back in 1975 talking about this.  Even during the Presidency of Gerald Ford, a moderate’s moderate, the establishment was calling for the party to moderate its views following the defeat of 1974.

RINO Season Begins Today

Written by Dr. Scott Livelywww.defendthefamily.com

For conservatives, it’s time to let some hard truths push aside conventional wisdom in the political realm.

First, we need to admit and accept that Republicans in Name Only (RINO) are worse enemies to our cause than Democrats.  Every time we accept a RINO instead of a true conservative for any position we guarantee a continuing progressive loss for conservative values.  Why?  Once RINOs are in office it is nearly impossible to replace them with a true conservative (absent a major scandal or such like) because the moderates (whose votes we need to defeat liberals) will never join with the conservatives to oust them in favor of a conservative.  This virtually assures a continuous cyclical succession of power from moderate to liberal office holders (until conservatives refuse to play ball).

Once this cycle begins the RINOs grow continuously stronger with each revolution as the “lesser of two evils“, “half a loaf is better than no loaf at all” philosophy become the common wisdom among conservatives.  And the longer this continues, the more conservatives are converted to moderates because RINOism is in fact a form of liberal “progressivism” and always moves to the left.  That in a nutshell explains the transformation of America we conservatives continually lament.

Second, the only way, therefore, to break the RINO to liberal to RINO to liberal cycle — and this is tough to swallow — is to let the liberals beat the RINOs by withholding our support.

This is what I believe happened to Romney, and if so, it might just turn out for the best — IF…

Third, conservatives seize the opportunity of a season of unchecked liberalism to rebuild our movement by launching a campaign of unapologetic advocacy of conservative values to moderates, who in turn will be increasingly alienated by experiencing liberalism in its true nature.  And IF…

Fourth, conservatives act quickly to purge the RINOs from our movement and take back control of the levers of power from them.

Very simply, conservatives only win when there is a clear choice between our values and those of the liberals (e.g. Reagan/Carter).RINOism obscures the distinctions, which guarantees a continuous leftward shift.  These coming four years will provide the best opportunity we have ever had in the history of our nation to showcase this contrast of values.  The end result can be a true shift of power from liberal to conservative if we resist the lure of compromise and “take the nation to school” on what we really stand for and why.

Fifth, and most importantly, conservatives must acknowledge our roots in the Bible just as openly and proudly as the Founders did.  This is, of course, what ultimately divides true conservatives from RINOs in the first place.  Because the “social issues” they so fear and loathe are really just Biblical values, and they fear them because they don’t share them with us, and thus cannot defend them in the political arena.

So, in conclusion, our real problem is not Barack Obama and the Democrats.  They’re just liberals being liberals.  Our real problem, whether or not we are Republicans ourselves, is the “Republican Establishment,”  RINO Central.  We need to run these phonies out of our movement, ASAP, and ensure that the next batch of candidates we put forward against the libs are men and women of principle.

Happy RINO hunting!

President Obama, More Religious Apostate than Religious Pioneer

Written by Dr. Michael Brown

According to CNN writer John Blake, President Barack Obama is “a religious pioneer” who, in the opinion of some scholars and pastors, is “also expanding the definition of who can be a Christian by challenging the religious right’s domination of the national stage.”

To be candid, and with due respect to the office of the president, Obama should be viewed as a religious apostate more than a religious pioneer. He has shown an extraordinary disregard for society’s most innocent and vulnerable members (babies in the womb), he has misused the Bible to defend the radical redefinition of marriage, and he has trashed religious freedoms with his health care mandates to the point that groups as disparate as Hobby Lobby and Catholic hospitals are suing the government. This is hardly the legacy of a religious pioneer.

Blake claimed in his article “Is Obama the ‘wrong’ kind of Christian?” that, “When Obama invoked Jesus to support same-sex marriage, framed health care as a moral imperative to care for ‘the least of these,’ and once urged people to read their Bible but just not literally, he was invoking another Christian tradition that once dominated American public life so much that it gave the nation its first megachurches, historians say.”

Blake is referring to the “social gospel” version of Christianity that was more prominent in the early to mid-20th century than it is today. As explained by Jim Wallis (head of the Sojourners, a leftwing, marginally evangelical organization), Obama’s faith “is not the faith of the religious right. It’s about things that they don’t talk about. It’s about how the Bible is full of God’s clear instruction to care for the poor.”

Putting aside the fact that “the religious right” is used as a term of disparagement in contrast with what Blake calls “progressive Christianity,” the truth is that conservative Christians lead the way in worldwide humanitarian relief efforts, they continue to build hospitals and orphanages and schools in many nations, they are active in drug and alcohol rehab programs in the inner cities of America, and they are at the forefront of the pro-life, pro-adoption movement.

As for their opposition to gay activism, it is the natural offshoot of their belief in marriage as defined by Jesus himself (one man and one woman joined together for life), it is in keeping with their high esteem for sexual purity, and it is in harmony with their wholly justified concerns that homosexual activism is the principle threat to our freedoms of conscience, religion, and speech. From a biblical perspective, President Obama is on the wrong side of these critically important issues.

For Blake, “Obama is a progressive Christian who blends the emotional fire of the African-American church, the ecumenical outlook of contemporary Protestantism, and the activism of the Social Gospel, a late 19th-century movement whose leaders faulted American churches for focusing too much on personal salvation while ignoring the conditions that led to pervasive poverty.”

And Blake wants to place Obama in the line of Black Christians like Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that “any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them …is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial.”

But Barack Obama is no Martin Luther King, as our president has proven himself to be a great divider whereas King was a great unifier. And King, for his part, would not have shouted “Amen” to the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s mentor, whose often shrill version of black liberation theology formed the ideological basis of Obama’s Christianity. With spiritual foundations like that, it is no wonder that the president could make the obscene comparison between “Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf” and gay marriage.

Blake closes his article by pointing to research done by Marcia Pally, author of the book “The New Evangelicals: Expanding the Vision of the Common Good.” He writes that Pally’s “perspective suggests that Obama’s faith may be treated by history in two ways: He could be seen as the last embodiment of a progressive version of Christianity that went obsolete. Or he could be seen as a leader who helped resurrect a dying brand of Christianity for a new generation.”

Pally and Blake fail to consider a third, more likely scenario: Obama could be seen as a religious apostate, a man who denied some of the most fundamental values of Christianity (what else can be said of a political leader who three times vetoed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act “that would require medical care for a baby who survives an abortion”?), a man who used the Bible to back a radical, often harmful social agenda. In that regard, Obama is more a disciple of Saul Alinsky than of Jesus.


Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire, and his latest book is The Real Kosher Jesus.

Obama the Fudger-in-Chief

Written by Laurie Higgins

Last night President Barack Obama, always the fudger-in-chief, played fast and loose with the phrase “act of terror.”  This was just a continuation of the deliberate word game he started playing in the Rose Garden the day after the Benghazi attack.

He’s playing on two different but similar sounding phrases. Professor David Norte has written about the distinction between “acts of terror” and “acts of terrorism.” President Obama, likely knowing that the Benghazi attack was an act of “terrorism” but not wanting the public to know that, because it would undermine his carefully crafted image as a fearless foe of Islamic extremists who effectively cedes—I mean leads—from behind.

The Aurora, Colorado theater shooting was an act of terror; the attack on Benghazi was an act of terrorism.

Now President Obama can use his squishy language, his dishonest and deliberate substitution of “terror” for “terrorism” for political cover.

Did the President Cross a Bridge To Far?

Written by Micah Clark

Here is a remarkable story that would have been unimaginable in 2008.   A group of African-American faith leaders has formed an organization called God Said, which plans on raising $1 million dollars in an effort to drive 25% of black voters away from President Barack Obama’s re-election.   The reason for this effort is due to the President’s support of same-sex marriage. The group, with 22 advisory board members, plans radio and television ads in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Florida.

“The black community is among the most religious in America, and we are offended that President Obama has announced his support of same-sex marriage, that the NAACP has blindly supported the secular views of the Democratic Party, and that their national platform plainly supports same-sex marriage,” Apostle Claver Kamau-Imani, a God Said founder said in a statement published by The Daily Caller. “I am confident that this message will be well received and acted upon on Election Day.”

Many people assume that Barack Obama, and virtually any other Democrat, has a near guaranteed 96% of the black vote backing them, because that is the routine breakdown in election after election.  Yet, a new survey from Zogby shows that Governor Romney has 6% of the black vote. Most surprisingly, it found that 18% of African-Americans surveyed said that they were “undecided” on how they would vote this November.

“During the 2008 elections, 70 percent of African-Americans voted to ban same-sex marriage in California while they also voted for Barack Obama for president,” Dr. Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., told The Daily Caller.  “We fully intend to shift 25 percent of the black vote from the 2008 election by charging every voter to examine each candidate and vote for the one that supports their core belief in natural marriage.”

Obama-Romney Debate

Written by Laurie Higgins

I have two quick comments on President Barack Obama’s embarrassing and insubstantial debate performance, both relating to Jim Lehrer’s question about ending partisan gridlock in Washington:

1.) Obama oddly responded to a question about ending gridlock by pointing out the importance of sometimes saying “no.” To illustrate his revolutionary gridlock-ending idea, he gave examples of his saying “no” to Republicans and then said Romney’s problem is that he doesn’t say “no” to members of his own party.

Just to make perfectly clear: Obama asserts that ending gridlock will involve Democrats saying “no” to Republicans and Republicans saying “no” to Republicans. The post-partisan president is right. That will definitely end gridlock.

2. ) Another peculiar statement from Obama on ending gridlock:

“Look, my philosophy has been, I will take ideas from anybody, Democrat or Republican, as long as they’re advancing the cause of making middle class families stronger and giving ladders of opportunity to the middle class. That’s how we cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses. That’s how we cut a trillion dollars of spending that wasn’t advancing that cause. That’s how we signed three trade deals into law that are helping us to double our exports and sell more American products around the world. That’s how we repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

–Say what? Repealing DADT was his bi-partisan way of “advancing the cause of making middle class families stronger”?

NAACP And the White Sexual Anarchists

Exclusive: Matt Barber shames black organization for buckling to ‘gay’ activists

As his re-election hopes dim, the mainstream “progressive” media continue to run interference for Barack Obama. It’s predictable. They no longer even try to hide it. They persist in slobbering on their over-hyped, under-capable would-be savior as his campaign collapses around them. The sycophancy is embarrassing and the desperation palpable.

Most recently, they’ve created a stir around the NAACP crowd booing Mitt Romney at the decidedly liberal group’s national convention in Houston, Texas. The activist attendees didn’t like the fact that President Obama’s presumptive GOP challenger intends to repeal Obamacare if elected.

Still, what you won’t hear from the mainstream media is the fact that those very same left-leaning activists gave Mr. Romney a rousing ovation when he pledged to defend the institution of real marriage from secular extremists’ ongoing attempts to radically re-define it.

During his speech, Romney quoted former NAACP Executive Director Benjamin Hooks, noting that the family “remains the bulwark and the mainstay of the black community. That great truth must not be overlooked.”

The former Massachusetts governor then promised the conference-goers: “Any policy that lifts up and honors the family is going to be good for the country, and that must be our goal. As president, I will promote strong families – and I will defend traditional marriage!”

At this, the crowd erupted into sustained applause.

Herein lies the ongoing rift between the NAACP leadership, its rank and file and the African-American community at large. By recently joining with President Obama to endorse counterfeit “same-sex marriage,” the NAACP leadership betrayed the very constituency it presumes to represent. It blundered its way directly into conflict with the vast majority of African-Americans.

“Traditional marriage enjoys steadfast support in America, especially among African-Americans,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in response to Romney’s pro-family pledge. “Just this past May, an overwhelming percentage of black voters supported a marriage protection amendment in North Carolina, just as they did several years ago in California and in other states,” continued Brown.

“We know that despite the actions of some African-American elites, rank-and-file voters in the black community continue to support marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” he concluded.

Indeed, by throwing their collective weight behind such extremist, San Francisco-style social engineering, both the president and the NAACP have exposed just how out of touch they are with the rest America – particularly African-Americans. (Consider, for instance, that in 2008, over 70 percent of black voters supported Prop. 8, California’s natural marriage-protection amendment.)

By backing the absurd, oxymoronic notion of so-called “same-sex marriage,” the NAACP leadership has allowed itself to be played by “the man.” (In this case “the man” is the mostly white, “progressive”-elite establishment.)

The black community is having none of it. A group of leading African-American clergy called “The Coalition of African-American Pastors” (CAAP) has called on both President Obama and the NAACP to honor their pledge to represent the interests of the black community instead of radical white special interests.

In an interview with the Christian Post, the Rev. Bill Owens, CAAP president, noted: “The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People needs to be recalled to its founding purpose. Black people face acute and urgent needs, from unemployment to education, family fragmentation, discrimination and crime.

“We are calling on the NAACP, a beloved organization in our eyes, to reclaim its mission. The black church founded the NAACP, and it is not the organization for the advancement of gays and lesbians – whatever the merits of that movement. Return to your roots and stand with the black church on marriage. The black church in our eyes remains the conscience of America.

“More than anything, this is an issue of biblical principles, and President Obama is carrying our nation down a dangerous road,” continued Owens. “Many African-Americans were once proud of our president, but now many are ashamed of his actions.”

For decades now, well-organized, well-funded and politically powerful homosexual pressure groups have, with impertinence, hijacked the language of the authentic civil rights movement.

In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, this mostly white sexual anarchist faction has disingenuously and ignobly hitched its little pink wagon to a movement that, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice.

Indeed, that Barack Obama and the NAACP would align themselves with a militant, immoral lobby that literally takes “pride” in arrogant rebellion against biblical principles is, perhaps, what’s most troubling about this inexplicable political misstep.

It’s offensive – disgusting, in fact – that this pleasure-based, sex-centric movement – delineated by deviant proclivities and behaviors – would dare to equate its demands for celebration of bad behavior to Christian notions of racial equality.

Pastor Ken Hutcherson, an influential black pastor from the Seattle area, put it well: “It has been said loudly and proudly that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If that’s the case, then gays would be the new African-Americans. I’m here to tell you now, and hopefully for the last time, that the gay community is not the new African-American community.

“Don’t compare your sin to my skin!” he demands.

Alas, how far we’ve come from the character-content vision of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. who, like his fellow Republican, Mitt Romney, recognized the critical importance of marriage and family. How we’ve perverted what constitutes true civil rights.

Shame on you, NAACP.

And shame on you, Barack Obama.


Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action (LCA on Facebook) . (Title and affiliation provided for identification purposes only.)

Modified by Matthew Medlen.com